The selling of agricultural products for future delivery has been the subject of much controversy in recent years. A measure to prohibit such selling, known as the Hatch Anti-Option bill, was debated at great length in Congress during the years 1892, 1893, and 1894. Although it passed both House and Senate in different forms, it was finally abandoned by common consent. As shown hereafter, similar legislation in Germany has proved injurious; and when attempted by our States it has either resulted detrimentally or been inoperative. The subject was exhaustively considered by the Industrial Commission of Congress which in 1901 made an elaborate report (Vol. VI), showing that selling for future delivery, based upon a forecast of future conditions of supply and demand, is an indispensable part of the world’s commercial future delivery has been the subject of machinery, by which prices are, as far as possible, equalized throughout the year to the advantage of both producer and consumer. The subject is also treated with clearness and impartiality in the Cyclopedia of American Agriculture, in an article on “Speculation and Farm Prices”; where it is shown that since, the yearly supply of wheat, for example, matures within a comparatively short period of time somebody must handle and store the great bulk of it during the interval between production and consumption. Otherwise the price will be unduly depressed at the end of one harvest and correspondingly advanced before the beginning of another. Buying for future delivery causes advances in prices; selling short tends to restrain inordinate advances. In each case there must be a buyer and a seller and the interaction of their trading steadies prices. Speculation thus brings into the market a distinct class of people possessing capital and special training who assume the risks of holding and distributing the proceeds of the crops from one season to another with the minimum of cost to producer and consumer. HEDGING A considerable part of the business done by these exchanges consists of “hedging.” This term is applied to the act of a miller, for example, who is under contract to supply a given quantity of flour monthly throughout the year. In order to insure himself against loss he makes a contract with anybody whom he considers financially responsible, to supply him wheat at times and in the quantities needed. He “hedges” against a possible scarcity and consequent rise in the price of wheat. If the miller were restricted in his purchases to persons in the actual possession of wheat at the time of making the contract he would be exposed to monopoly prices. If the wheat producer were limited in his possibilities of sale to consumers only, he would be subjected to the depressing effects of a glut in the market in June and September, at times of harvest.